May 15, 1925 
Egg-Producing Capacity of Ascaris lumbricoides 983 
form more than 60 wreathes in one line 
within the uterus.” The eggs in the 
uterus are no longer the slender, 
elongate ova arranged radially around 
a rachis but are mature and unattached, 
and the counts in a cross section are 
seen in the present investigation to 
vary greatly, from 42 to 571 in such a 
section. Therefore, whereas Eschricnt 
gives 3,000 eggs to a line, or, assuming 
that Eschricht’s line was one-twelfth 
of a Paris inch of 27 mm. as used in 
Germany at the time his paper was 
published, 1,333 eggs to a 1 mm. 
length, in the uterus, the present 
writer found 5,642 and 6,703 to a 
1 mm. length in the 2 specimens used. 
The greatest difference, however, in 
the data given by Eschricht and those 
of this investigation is in the total 
lengths of the genital systems. Esch¬ 
richt gives the length as 4,608 lines, 
which would be approximately 10,408 
mm. The combined lengths of ovaries 
and uteri in the 2 specimens considered 
in this paper, however, were 3,684 mm. 
and 3,475 mm., respectively. In 3 
other specimens measured by the 
writer the measurements were as 
follows: A female ascarid 28 cm. long 
had total uterine length of 360 mm. and 
total ovarian length of 3,520 mm.; in 
a specimen 28.5 cm. long the figures 
were 440 mm. and 3,650 mm., respec¬ 
tively; in a specimen 29 cm. long the 
figures were 460 mm. and 3,840 mm., 
respectively. Leuckart gives the length 
for a smaller worm (15.7 cm. in length) 
as 300 to 500 mm. for the combined 
length of uteri, and 2,500 for that of the 
ovaries. It seems then that Eschricht’s 
measurements, two and one-half to 
three and one-half times as great as the 
above figures, are probably incorrect. 
Leuckart computes the number of 
ova in an ascarid in the following 
manner. He states that the length of 
the ovary was 1,200 (presumably 1,200 
mm.), the base of each cone-shaped 
ovum in it 0.04 mm., and the number 
of ova in a cross section 100. From 
these data he concludes that the total 
number of eggs in each ovarv would be 
30,000,000, or 60,000,000 for both. The 
uteri, he says, contain an additional 
10,000,000 to 11,000,000 eggs. There 
is apparently some error in Leuckart’s 
computations, as the above data would 
give 3,000,000 and 6,000,000 instead of 
30,000,000 and 60,000,000. It is pos¬ 
sible, however, that the discrepancy 
lies in the figure 0.04 mm. as the base 
of the ovum; none of the ovarian ova 
measured by the present writer ex¬ 
ceeded 10 ijl, the range being 6.5 to 
10 n, so that it is possible that Leuc¬ 
kart meant 4 u instead of 40 u, in which 
case his 30,000,000 and 60,000,000 re¬ 
sult would be mathematically correct. 
Another important difference be¬ 
tween his counts and the present 
writer’s is that for the cross section of 
the ovarv Leuckart states that there 
were 100 or more ova around the rachis 
(although his figure shows only 48), 
whereas the counts in the present 
investigations varied considerably in 
different parts of the ovaries and in the 
two different specimens. In Ascaris A 
there was an average of 84 ova, and 
in Ascaris B an average of 57 in such 
sections. Leuckart does not seem to 
have taken into consideration the ger¬ 
minal zone of the ovary in which no 
rachis is present. 
It is seen thus that both the compu¬ 
tations of Eschricht and those of 
Leuckart are confused, apparently 
containing either incorrect observa¬ 
tions or deductions or, as far as it is 
possible to judge from the data, being 
mathematically unsound, and their 
counts of 64,000,000 and 70,000,000, 
respectively, can not be accepted as 
completely trustworthy. It was be¬ 
cause of this that the present investi¬ 
gation was undertaken and the counts 
made that are recorded herein. 
SUMMARY 
This study of American material of 
Ascaris lumbricoides indicates that the 
total number of eggs, fully developed 
and in process of development, in the 
female is from 26,000,000 to 27,000,000, 
and the former estimates of Eschricht 
and of Leuckart, 64,000,000 and 
70,000,000, respectively, are apparently 
incorrect. 
